Posted by deathinahole on 10/24/2011 4:46:00 PM (view original):
I'm preaching to the choir, but is that transfer "free"?

Do you get a "oh sure sure, go ahead, transfer that budget."

Free financially .... probably from a fee standpoint.... unless its borrowed money being transferred. Depends on the opportunity cost as well... would that money be better off not spent or invested elsewhere.

That said, I wouldn't want to be the one going to my boss asking for the money. I think in hbd if you make transfers free then what's the point of budgeting? To me I'd have $70 mil in prospect money... and I'm pretty sure the league would not be happy about it. That's why the caps and penalties are there in hbd imo.

Posted by deathinahole on 10/24/2011 4:33:00 PM (view original):
Apparently in real life, a budget is not a commitment.

tufft obviously does not work in finance.

"sure Charlie, go ahead and spend more than we budgetted for! It wasn't really a commitment. I'll explain it to the CEO"

CEO: "Good idea, Charlie. We have information now that didn't exist when we set the budget. I'm going to move $10M out of that budget, put $5M in your budget, and $5M in the shredder."

Posted by tufft on 10/24/2011 6:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by deathinahole on 10/24/2011 4:33:00 PM (view original):
Apparently in real life, a budget is not a commitment.

tufft obviously does not work in finance.

"sure Charlie, go ahead and spend more than we budgetted for! It wasn't really a commitment. I'll explain it to the CEO"

CEO: "Good idea, Charlie. We have information now that didn't exist when we set the budget. I'm going to move $10M out of that budget, put $5M in your budget, and $5M in the shredder."

Brian Cashman to Hal Steinbrenner: " You know, Boss Jr., it's going to be tough staying ahead of the Kansas City Royals next season since we both have $185m budgets."

Posted by tufft on 10/24/2011 6:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by deathinahole on 10/24/2011 4:33:00 PM (view original):
Apparently in real life, a budget is not a commitment.

tufft obviously does not work in finance.

"sure Charlie, go ahead and spend more than we budgetted for! It wasn't really a commitment. I'll explain it to the CEO"

CEO: "Good idea, Charlie. We have information now that didn't exist when we set the budget. I'm going to move $10M out of that budget, put $5M in your budget, and $5M in the shredder."

When was the last time you asked your boss for more money?

CEO: "I'm not going to bring this to the shareholders.... work within your budget."

>> When was the last time you asked your boss for more money? <<

It's been years. I don't need to ask anyone to give me a budget anymore.  I set my own. When I had my budgets set by others, if I needed more money to make more money, I asked for it. If there was money in another budget that wasn't going to be spent because situations had changed, it usually wasn't a hard to get done.

>> CEO: "I'm not going to bring this to the shareholders.... work within your budget." <<

Moving money from one budget to another doesn't cost the shareholders or the CEO anything. There's no new money being added.

There are books on these ideas.  You should have read one of them in high school. If you're 12 or under, you seem like a bright kid. But don't quit school. You have some really simple & basic things to learn.

Is this really this hard for you to understand? Mike's a dope. All he can do is call people names when he can't defend what he posts here. I admit I find it really funny to see what kinds of stupid crazy **** he comes back with.  The rest of us will probably never have our own show like Ricky Gervais. Mike's the closest we'll get to having our own Karl Pilkington.

Quote post by tufft on 10/24/2011 9:21:00 PM:>> When was the last time you asked your boss for more money? <<

It's been years. I don't need to ask anyone to give me a budget anymore.  I set my own. When I had my budgets set by others, if I needed more money to make more money, I asked for it. If there was money in another budget that wasn't going to be spent because situations had changed, it usually wasn't a hard to get done.

>> CEO: "I'm not going to bring this to the shareholders.... work within your budget." <<

Moving money from one budget to another doesn't cost the shareholders or the CEO anything. There's no new money being added.   

There are books on these ideas.  You should have read one of them in high school. If you're 12 or under, you seem like a bright kid. But don't quit school. You have some really simple & basic things to learn.

Is this really this hard for you to understand? Mike's a dope. All he can do is call people names when he can't defend what he posts here. I admit I find it really funny to see what kinds of stupid crazy **** he comes back with.  The rest of us will probably never have our own show like Ricky Gervais. Mike's the closest we'll get to having our own Karl Pilkington.

As an accountant, I can tell you are grasping.   Most of the time when someone asks for an increase to their portion of the master budget, it means that expenses have increased.   A significant increase on one area's al;location usually does not have a corresponding decrease in another area.   There is a possibility that you are referring to a flexible budget that allows for increases based upon increases to sales.  But, HBD has a constant budget amount.     Therefore, if a significant increase in a budget is requested, it most likely will affect the bottom line.  You said it yourself:  There is no new money being added.   So if you ask the CEO to increase your budget by 6 or 7 figures, where does the money come from?   Will other areas be able to cut their cost to accomodate your area?   Chances are  not

Moving money from one budget to another doesn't cost the shareholders or the CEO anything. There's no new money being added.


There are books on Opportunity Cost and ROI as well. You show your ignorance by saying it doesn't cost the shareholders and the CEO anything.

There are all kinds of budgets....budgeted projections used for attracting investors(pro forma financials), internal budgets for predicting future cash flow, budgets that are used as a tool to measure performance, and expense allocation budgets (type that seems to be thrown around a lot in this thread).

What do they all have in common?  They have nothing to do with an internet baseball game.

True. It is a mechanism to make the game more challenging.

Which is where the meltdown happened, I believe, is when tufft brought in real life and "but it's just as challenging if you have a big pot of money".

That's sort of where tuft and I began to disagree.   One pool or no penalty definitely makes the game easier.   And I think it might make the game more "realistic".   While MLB teams don't have a "true" budget(neither do we because we can transfer funds and accept/give cash in trades), Hank didn't tell Cashman "Well, you goddam 'tard, you didn't get Lee.   I guess you can find the next Hidecki Irabu but, instead of 26m, you can only have 13m to do it!!!"

But, as I said, it makes the game easier and not necessarily better.   I'm quite sure, with one pool, that more than one dumbass would spend all his money on free agents and not have enough for draftees or coaches.   In the first world that it would be effective in.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/25/2011 9:39:00 AM (view original):
That's sort of where tuft and I began to disagree.   One pool or no penalty definitely makes the game easier.   And I think it might make the game more "realistic".   While MLB teams don't have a "true" budget(neither do we because we can transfer funds and accept/give cash in trades), Hank didn't tell Cashman "Well, you goddam 'tard, you didn't get Lee.   I guess you can find the next Hidecki Irabu but, instead of 26m, you can only have 13m to do it!!!"

But, as I said, it makes the game easier and not necessarily better.   I'm quite sure, with one pool, that more than one dumbass would spend all his money on free agents and not have enough for draftees or coaches.   In the first world that it would be effective in.

I guarantee that would be the case (last paragraph) . Think of the amount of prospect money tankers would have. Normally I'm not for restrictions.... but for this game it minimizes gimmickry spending imo.

You can't stop tankers from tanking(without minimum win rules) so I don't sweat that so much.    But, when there's no money to sign draft picks or, even worse, coaches, a problem is created where there's no real solution.    You almost have to have the minimums in prospects/coaches in place to protect the dumbasses from themselves. 

I'm sure we'd see a $100m IFA.  Awesome.

Not sure that matters.   If the highest someone can bid on an IFA, due to transfer fees, is 40m, they'll bid 40m.   Or 100m if that's where they're going.  Again, tankers gonna tank.  Can't stop them without MWR.